Give Minority Youngsters a Lousy Education and Then Admit Them to College By Quotas by Thomas Sowell (February 9, 2003)

Summary: It has been said that, when Ronald Reagan was governor of California, someone told him that admitting students to the University of California on individual performance alone could mean that all the students at Berkeley might be Asian Americans. "So what?" was the Gipper's response.

[CAPITALISM MAGAZINE.COM]

It has been said that, when Ronald Reagan was governor of California, someone told him that admitting students to the University of California on individual performance alone could mean that all the students at Berkeley might be Asian Americans. "So what?" was the Gipper's response.

Like many other Reagan remarks, it cut through mountains of nonsense and knocked over numerous houses of cards that keep the intelligentsia wringing their hands. A classic example is a recent New York Times story that said: "Asians gain when affirmative action ends. Other minorities don't. What's fair?"

Let's go back to square one. Why do universities exist in the first place? Is it to parcel out benefits to different racial or ethnic groups? If so, why not just give them money? Do universities exist to be fair -- whatever that means? If fair means equal chances or proportional representation, then why not make admissions a lottery?

All too many people in college admissions offices talk and act as if their job is to hand out goodies to those who seem most deserving, in terms of how well they used whatever particular opportunities they happen to have had.

In other words, if student A went to a top-notch high school and scored 1500 on the SATs, while student B went to a mediocre high school and scored 1300, then student B may be admitted and student A denied admission if the little tin gods in the admissions office decide that B made better use of his opportunities.

You couldn't make up anything as silly as this. Educational institutions do not exist to reward people for their past but to prepare them for the future. The taxpayers and donors who are supporting these institutions with their hard-earned money are doing so to benefit the society that these graduates will be serving, not to allow bureaucrats to hand out pork barrel benefits to individuals or groups.

In all the swirl of words around the issue of affirmative action in college and university admissions -- including the endlessly repeated mantra of "diversity" -- there is seldom a single word about serving the public by admitting those who have the academic skills to put the educational resources to the best use.

If a disproportionate number of those who can master the skills that educational institutions provide are Asian Americans, then as the Gipper said, "So what?"

Do you want to fly in planes flown by the best qualified pilots available or in planes flown by quota pilots or by pilots whose life stories were most appealing to those on admissions committees? If you are going to have heart surgery, do you want the best surgeon you can get or do you want a surgeon who had to overcome a lot of handicaps just to make it through medical school?

Would you be offended to have your life saved by someone who had easily become the best surgeon because he was born in the lap of privilege and always had the finest education available, regardless of how much it cost? Would it bother you if he was Asian American or even -- heaven help us -- a WASP?

Institutions and occupations exist for a purpose -- and that purpose is not to provide a statistical picture that is pleasing for those people who are preoccupied with statistical pictures. Food and shelter, housing and health, life and death, are among the many things that depend on how well institutions function and how well people do their jobs.

These things are too important to sacrifice so that busybodies can feel important directing other people's lives. Indeed, the freedom of those other people is too important to be sacrificed for the sake of third parties' vanity.

Anyone who is serious about wanting to help minority young people must know that the place to start is at precisely the other end of the educational process. That means beginning in the earliest grades teaching reading, math and other mental skills on which their future depends. But that would mean clashing with the teachers' unions and their own busybody agenda of propaganda and psychological manipulation in the classrooms.

The path of least resistance is to give minority youngsters a lousy education and then admit them to college by quotas. With a decent education, they wouldn't need the quotas.

Author Bio: Thomas Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college.

...why even bother to grade a student's work?...Hell why even bother to have a student study, it's not like Americans can be held accountable for their actions and commitments anymore..it's NOT their fault..I blame Reagan and the Ozone hole and the Greedy Christmas Industrial Simplex...

If I pay taxes to it, I should be allowed to gain some benefit from it.

There's a difference between Harvard, a private school, and Ohio State, a taxpayer supported school. The first can have just about any exclusive entry rule it wants. The second must come up with some kind of entry policy that recognizes that everyone in Ohio has contributed to the school's upkeep and should have X chance of getting in.

The school should be allowed to do some things for its own benefit that make money....giving a scholarship to a top quarterback who will bring in millions in gate receipts and help fund music, sports, and other programs.

Other than that there should be a list of applicants....those who are fully qualified and would probably graduate, and those who are not qualified and probably won't make it to graduation. The first INDIVIDUAL hurdle then is to qualify oneself to be on the fully qualified list.

The fully qualified list should be run as a lottey and if 5000 names are needed, then 5000 names should be pulled randomly.

Based on population percentages of whites to blacks clearly there should be a much larger number of whites.

Quota's are rediculous. Sports, jobs and education are both highly competitive and only the best of the best should make the team, regardless of the color of your skin.

Imagine a team of 5'- 2" white males competing in the NBA because they complained about hieght and color issues. Now imagine the same team complaining because they wanted the same salary as Michael Jordan.

Now take similar circumstances and apply that to the medical field. Who would you want to operate on you?

I would want the best of the best not the team that got in on sympathy.

>>If I pay taxes to it, I should be allowed to gain some benefit from it. There's a difference between Harvard, a private school, and Ohio State, a taxpayer supported school. The first can have just about any exclusive entry rule it wants. The second must come up with some kind of entry policy that recognizes that everyone in Ohio has contributed to the school's upkeep and should have X chance of getting in.<<

First of all, your benefit is that the State of Ohio gets a shot at retaining some smart, educated people who might otherwise move to Indiana.

Secondly, it is wrong to demand a personalized benefit ("having x chance of getting in"). If you are qualified, you do have "x" chance of getting in. If you aren't, you have "y" chance of getting in.

The debate is about whether there are any reasonable non-zero values of "y".

Forty years ago my dad went to a black dentist. These were the days before affirmative action. I was a youngster and curious, so I asked, "Why do you go to a black dentist?". His reply has stayed with me ever since. He replied, "for a black man to become a dentist means that he must be better than any white dentist, and I want the best!" It took me a few more years to understand his reasoning, but the civil rights movement opened my eyes to the institutional bigotry and discrimination that was prevalent before those days. Everything is just reversed today. Now you have to wonder if a black professional reached his position by his own talents or was handed an extra 20 points because of his complexion. ===========================================

I, for one, couldn't agree more. The best MD I ever had was when my husband was active duty AF. The fellow was a black, pre-AA, military MD. Alas, all too shortly thereafter he retired from the AF, and went into private practice somewhere out of state. He's probably is making a million $$ a year...and, God bless him, he's worth every penny of it.

But like you said, things are now reversed. From bitter experience I now avoid younger (than, say 40) minority and/or female "health care providers" like the plague. I mean, holy mackeral!

The MDs I seek out now are asian-American males. B/c like your father's dentist 40 years ago it means he must be better -- a lot better-- than those others.

23
posted on 02/09/2003 1:32:29 PM PST
by yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it, but I'd much rather dish it out.")

Universities are cash flow factories for professors and staff. The idea is to get as many paying customers as you can. It isn't any different than other businesses in our fine land. After the customer pays a lot of money, you gotta give them some kind of degree as long as they try hard. Universities can't survive on catering to just merit scholars.

Secondly, it is wrong to demand a personalized benefit ("having x chance of getting in"). If you are qualified, you do have "x" chance of getting in. If you aren't, you have "y" chance of getting in.

The problem is deciding who is "qualified". There's no one standard. SATS, grades, class rankings, essays, all have different meanings. And most schools do want to have successful athletic programs, whuch means they need some leeway for athletes.

I'd really like to see the decisions made by a board that doesn't know the name, sex or race of the applicant. Then it really wouldn't matter how much influence they gave to each factor.

But like you said, things are now reversed. From bitter experience I now avoid younger (than, say 40) minority and/or female "health care providers" like the plague. I mean, holy mackeral!

I'm not blaming you for your reactions, but what is shameful is that fully deserving minority individuals are painted with the same brush. I've told this story here before, but it won't hurt to tell it again.

I sat on a selection panel to for an important position. Far and away the best candidate for the position was a black woman. Better qualifications, better interview, better references. She won the selection in a rout.

Those that weren't selected naturally started a whispering campaign that she was a "quota hire." Nothing could be further from the truth. She would have won that position if she had been green with purple polkadots.

Through her work, she did earn the respect of everyone on the team assigned to the project, but the default impression a newcomer came in with was that she didn't honestly deserve her job.

My cheeks burn when I think of some of the comments I heard about her from those who hadn't worked with her. And, yes, I did what I could to set the record straight.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.